Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lunamann (talk | contribs) at 19:09, 23 April 2024 (→‎Boulder Badge: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

April 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 23, 2024.

Dextette

i thought it was a peachette deal, but it's not even that. two characters in the gen 3 anime refer to the pokédex as that sometimes maybe probably, and that's as far as it seems to go cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Badge

that's brock's badge, for context. not notable on its own, aside from how boring it looks, and this probably wouldn't be the right target anyway cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to recommend retargeting to Brock (Pokémon), but it somehow doesn't mention the Boulder Badge by name. Which is exceedingly odd? You'd think that'd be one of the more notable details about the character, the fact that he's a gym leader that gives out the Boulder Badge. The entire article needs a coat of Rock Polish anyways tbh... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aku Type

what cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokédex (Sinnoh)

retarget to the list of gen 4 pokémon? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Full Pokedex

retarget to the list of pokémon or delete, this ain't the full pokédex cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Pokémon

not sure if this is referring to bird pokémon (like corviknight and the worse corviknight), in which case i'd say retarget to the list of pokémon or delete (more so delete) or to the unused bird type, in which case redirect to missingno without a second or first thought cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Legendary Pokémon

i'd say retarget to the list of pokémon, even though it's a list of all the pokémon cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Legendary Pokémon

i'd say retarget to kyogre, as it's the first in the weather trio cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Master

is this really the best place to target, as opposed to pokémon masters ex? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Crystal Health Items list

not a list of health items (whatever that's supposed to mean), or focused specifically on crystal cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Pokémon

maybe retarget to the list of pokémon as with mythical pokémon? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to match Mythical Pokémon as per Cogsan. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just noticed the 4rd one has a minor spelling mistake, should it be deleted? i'd say delete cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hazeltown

This is not attested anywhere, and its addition to the article was solely referenced to the article's "version history". 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just added a {{cn}} at the target. The article was titled Hazeltown and mention has been there right from the first edit in 2008 - Keep as long as the mention is there. Jay 💬 13:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: any thoughts on keeping the redrect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Province of Bessarabia

Nonsense redirects. Bessarabia is a region in Eastern Europe. Budjak is a subset of it. Super Ψ Dro 12:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Bessarabia Governorate. "Province" appears to be an alternative translation (see [1], [2], etc.) - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In both links you gave province is not capitalized, there is no proper names but a descriptive combination of words. There was also Bessarabia Governorate (Romania) by the way. We could disambiguate but I see it as really unnecessary. Also, come on, The Province of Bessarabia is completely implausible, it should be deleted. Super Ψ Dro 23:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it matter if it's not capitalized in the specific sources I found? It will still be a plausible search term. I thought about disambiguation, but I think the hatnote at the proposed target is sufficient. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the key word in the nominating statement is: "is". Bessarabia is a larger region in Eastern Europe. However, it appears that it was a smaller Turkish province/governate/eyalet, from the late 15th century through the early 19th century. Here's the article as it stood before being redirected in 2005:

    The Province of Bessarabia or Besarabya pashalyk in Turkish, was an Ottoman province from 1478 to 1812. Its size varied, however by 1600, it included the towns of Cetatea Alba, Izmail, Tighina, and Kilia.
    The Ottoman Province of Bassarabia was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1812, along with all Moldovan territory east of the Prut river, which the Russians governed jointly in one single Russian province of Bessarabia.
    The Ottoman Province, only, is more or less the same size as the territory of modern-day Bugeac, which is currently part of the Ukrainian Odessa oblast.

    This is uncited but sounds plausible, and it aligns with the bit in Budjak#Name and geography (i.e., the redirect's target) that uses the name historic Bessarabia. There are sources such as this 1927 book (about the Russian annexation of the province) and this 2019 book (about ethnicity, but summarizing the pre-Russian state, in which Bessarabia was vaguely delimited but generally congruent with Budjak), and "province"+"bessarabia"&pg=PA59&printsec=frontcover this book (which confirms Izmail was part of the province of Bessarabia when the Russians took the province from the Ottomans, before they gave it to Moldovia) that verify at least parts of it. At any rate, though I'm unfamiliar with the history of this area, it appears that it's not "nonsense", but merely a detail of history that is not widely known. Consequently, we should probably keep this redirect, and probably improve the target article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavia Province, Ottoman Empire

The Principality of Moldavia was never a "province" of the Ottoman Empire. It was never a part of the empire. It always remained a separate country with its own laws and administration under vassalage. These redirects are inaccurate and misleading. Also the "Bogdan/Bogdania/Boğdan" redirects are made up original research. Super Ψ Dro 12:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Moldavia Province and Boğdan Province Referred to as such in several books (on "Moldavia," see [3], [4], [5], etc.) (on "Boğdan," see [6] and [7]). Cannot find references for the others, so delete. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why should we keep blatantly inaccurate redirects. Moldavia (known in Turkish as Boğdan) was never a formal part of the Ottoman Empire, much less something organized into a province. If anything some parts of Moldavia, fractions, were formally annexed and organized into distinct sanjaks ("provinces") that did not even border each other [8] [9], adding a layer of ambiguity to this issue. That sources with a wide general scope have chosen to use a common word to describe a detail that was clearly not given much attention do not change Moldavia's status in the past. Professional academic sources on the history of Romania will never refer to Moldavia as a "province". Super Ψ Dro 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are concerned about the inaccuracy, the redirects can be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}. As it stands, there are indeed sources which refer to this area as a "province" of the Ottoman Empire, so the redirects are plausible search terms. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This idea (I do not see why should we keep blatantly inaccurate redirects) seems to come up fairly often. The telephone game by which we teach editors how Wikipedia works is not good at this kind of subject. So, because a lot of editors don't know, let me say that the point of a redirect is not to be accurate information, but to take readers to accurate information. An incorrect name can make a perfectly fine redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide–Darwin rail corridor

I would like to delete the redirect "Adelaide–Darwin rail corridor" so that I can move the current article, "Adelaide–Darwin railway line" to the name currently occupied by the redirect.

Rationale: There are 5 major rail corridors between Australia's capital cities (as in the map here). For 4 of them, the Wikipedia article uses the word "corridor" (example: Sydney–Brisbane rail corridor). Only the Adelaide–Darwin one uses "line". The action requested would unify the terminology of all five. SCHolar44 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Law of fives

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discordian concept (e.g. [10]), so the redirect should go to Discordianism. Furius (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect whose topics are not mentioned at the target do not help the reader at all. Veverve (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, what is this mass deletion of much of Discordian concepts? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore relevant section, which can be found here. I'll note that there may be more-recent revisions of this section somewhere in the page history and/or relevant sources to cite (given the section I'm linking didn't have sources at this time); finding said sources/newer revisions will be an exercise left to the editor, given holy hell, the page history for this page is a nightmare. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This cannot be restored as it is unsourced (WP:BURDEN). Veverve (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the correct page in the Principia Discordia (the holy book of this religion), and should serve as a fairly good source for this section, especially given it already claims to (and upon checking, DOES) quote said book. As a note, this took FIVE SECONDS to find, given said book is literally linked to, multiple times, by both this old version of the page AND the current version.
    There's a time and a place to use WP:BURDEN. "I don't feel like taking a five second check to see if I can find a source myself in the most obvious spot(s)" isn't the time nor place. (edit at 12:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like the Bible is most of the time not a RS to talk about Christianity, using this book the way you propose is OR from a primary source and not the use of a secondary RS. Primary sources should often be avoided, and in this case it should. Yes, you can WP:SELFSOURCE, but the relevance of the information (WP:ONUS) is to be decided by secondary sources (do they mention the information? do they say it is an important information, how much do they dedicate to said information?) and not by the presence of redirects. Veverve (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all right, let's just check the next most obvious spot, being one of the sources we already have, and... Oh hey look, Invented Religions (the book cited multiple times already in these discussions) has a mention of the Law of Fives, too.
    Would be helpful if Google Books had a way to see the full discussion of the topic without buying the book but w/e
    In any case, that brings me back to my main point, there-- it's unhelpful, and actively harmful, to take a broad hatchet and hack away at unsourced parts of an article without first checking the most obvious places to see if you can find a source yourself. Those most obvious places including texts referenced in/quoted by the article without linking to them (which can quickly become sourcing FROM those texts), texts already used as sources elsewhere in the article, and a five-second search on Google Books. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronomian

The target article does not mention the word “Pronomian” nor explain what the word means. Bwrs (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems to be an R from antonym, given the "Anti-" in the target article is getting swapped for "Pro-", with the implication that the views of "Pronomians" are opposite that of "Antinomians". That said, I'd like to point out that R from Antonym as an rcat is one of those rcats that populates a maintenance category, so we can't just tag as Antonym and keep. (Which is odd to me? If we don't have an article on something, but we have an article on its direct opposite, and we can reasonably and competently explain the first thing as "the complete opposite of this second thing", then that seems to be a good place to have a redirect. Why is this rcat populating a maintenance category?) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really know for a fact that pronomianism is the opposite of antinomianism, or do we merely assume so based on the fact that “pro-” is the opposite of “anti-”? Now, if I really wanted to rid Wikipedia of these redirects I can tell you that they were made by somebody who is the subject of an WP:Office action. But the Wikipedia:Office never publishes the reasons for its actions, and I hope that discussing it here might raise the attention of subject matter experts who know what pronomianism actually is. Bwrs (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe we should redirect to Christian views on the Old Covenant. Antinomianism is usually used to mean a particular deviation from the mainstream Christian view (though we do a bad job of defining it in the article), so I don’t think this is an antonym, just another niche view.— JFHutson (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although that might be the most appropriate redirection target, it does not define the term either. Nowhere does the string “pronomian” appear in either the current target or in the new proposed target. This is one of my pet peeves, when a word I do not know redirects to an article that does not define this word. Bwrs (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with deletion as well, as I doubt the redirect could be helpful to anyone.-- JFHutson (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Mountain (logo)

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

While the logo might be a mountain, the words "dark" nor "mountain" do not appear anywhere at the target page. We don't have any encyclopedic about a dark mountain logo, which encyclopedic content about a logo seems to be specifically requested through this search term, by including "logo" in the title. With this being tagged as a "related meme without a mention", I'm not too convinced about its plausibility standalone. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Deco

I presume this might have once been [mentioned], but now this concept of Dark Deco is not mentioned at the target. It has minor mentions across Wikipedia in reference to properties such as Batman: The Animated Series (across this and 2 other related pages, Gotham City and Andrea Beaumont), and also at Skullgirls in a quote. As it looks like 75% of all mentions of "Dark Deco" are at Batman pages, perhaps sending this to Batman: The Animated Series is the primary topic? Searching "Dark Deco" externally, 50% of my results are all Batman, with the rest of the topics being neologism hodgepodge across blogs and such. Now that I look into this more, I'm close to believing that "Dark Deco" is a specific Batman-related topic, and one that we cover across multiple Batman pages and basically nowhere else, but I wanted to bring this here as the current target has been fairly longstanding. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Catching

A film that is not mentioned at the target article. I presume it's about the target, but with no mentions to Mill, the connection is unclear? Dreamcatching is a similar redirect that currently points to Dreamcatcher, which this is a variation of. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winged spear

Between Corseque, Spetum, and the fact that this redirect is not mentioned in the current target, it's not clear which subject readers are desiring to locate when searching this term. (However, used to be a section at Polearm#Winged spear, a section which was present in 2012, but was removed at some point that year.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit the Bohemian Earspoon is not the most obvious redirect. Winged spears are probably ancestral to the spetum and corseque too. If I were to plump for one, it would probably be spetum. But there is an argument that a separate article or article section on the weapon would ultimately be preferable. Be hard to make it above a start though. Monstrelet (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, makes me wonder if the section I linked which existed over a decade ago should be restored, or even used to overwrite the nominated redirect with an article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link baiting

Deletion, link baiting differs from clickbait to the degree that the redirect is misleading. Link baiting does not have the deceptive nature of clickbait. [1] Acalc79 (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=9WE1AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT112&dq=%22linkbaiting%22&hl=&cd=2&source=gbs_api#v=onepage&q=%22linkbaiting%22&f=false
I don't suppose I could ask how you're defining "link baiting?" 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
apparently, the difference is the target demographic
clickbait is for general #ContentConsumers™ who love consuming content. for examples, uh, open up youtube and go to incognito mode
link bait is for creators, to try to get them to advertise, sponsor, or otherwise promote your slop. for an example, get offered a raidy shady sponsorship i think
so my pedantic ass would say delete unless a section or article on link bait can be made cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term is ambiguous. Link bait can mean both "clickbait" as well as "content designed to attract incoming links". We have no content to link to for the latter meaning, so there is nothing to do for now. Paradoctor (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanator.com

Target article doesn't mention Japanator. Anyone has any idea? Neocorelight (Talk) 01:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually tried digging around, including the history of the (now community banned) person that created the redirect. Maybe a troll creation? No valid reason can be found, so Delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not a troll creation. I found this redirect by a link from another article. Neocorelight (Talk) 12:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanator should be bundled as well, I think? Not a super simple history. It was a sibling-ish site of Destructoid for quite awhile,[11][12] then was merged into Siliconera [13]. And so was part of Enthusiast Gaming (a possible retarget since it's mentioned there) but then Gamurs acquired some sites from Enthusiast (including Siliconera). So I think retarget to Enthusiast Gaming since it's mentioned there, including the transfer to Gamurs, and most of its system was part of that. Gamurs would be a fine (future) retarget if it's expanded. And open to other ideas if people know more (sadly lots of noise from the, hm, particular era that impacted gaming sites). (Pinging Neocorelight and Dennis Brown.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skynxnex Please do the bundling. I don't know how to. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neocorelight added (I think, oddly this is something I haven't done a ton of). Skynxnex (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gamurs would be an ideal target, but if no one's gonna write a mention of Japanator then I'm fine with retargeting to Enthusiast Gaming. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think redirecting it to an article with an unsourced single line mention is a good idea. For the redirect to stay, somewhere there needs to be a cite at least demonstrating it existed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added one. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the way to Aberystwyth

Not mentioned at target. Youtube suggests it's a parody version of the song, but it's not mentioned here, and doesn't look to be widely covered, and thus an implausible search term in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

52nd International Film Festival Rotterdam

Misleading redirect, actually pointing to the 51st edition of the festival. Per WP:REDLINK a redlink would be more useful, as it would encourage editors to create the page, and not giving them the impression the page already exists. Cavarrone 16:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as misleading, and also to encourage creation of an actual article about the 52th event. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian concession in Sarandë

Romanian Institute in Albania was originally created under this title. The author, blocked since 2019, appears to have misread the sources he used. Albania granted a Romanian historian property in Sarandë and he established an institute on it and granted half of the land to the Romanian state, but this does not mean a part of Sarandë stopped being a sovereign part of Albania to become part of Romania. The "concession" thing is original research. No sources talk about this using the word "concession" [14]. This is ultimately a hoax. Draft:Romanian concession in Sarandë should be deleted too. Super Ψ Dro 13:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also bundled Draft:Romanian concession in Sarandë and notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bessel potential space

Sobolev space#Bessel potential spaces seems like a more precise target (though the articles should also ideally link to each other). 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balon D´Or

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balon de Oro

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RLANG. I think this is probably a rendering of the Spanish name for this trophy, Balón de Oro, without the diacritic. Since this award has no particular affinity to Spanish, I see no reason to keep. (Note that the version with the diacritic does not exist). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no specific ties to Spanish (as it's a French magazine award), so Spanish name redirect not needed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European footballer of the year

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuno Miles

PROD'ed but redirects are ineligible for that process. The original PROD statement was: Redirects to an article that doesn't mention Miles. Appears reasonable to me, this person doesn't seem notable enough to be mentioned in the target article as far as I can tell and I don't immediately see a good alternative target. Pinging original nominator: @Frankoceanreal. Tollens (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appomatox coart house surrender

The double misspelling (both Appomattox and Court) with the miscapitalization on top makes this highly unlikely to be useful. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unlikely misspelling. Odd that this has been around for 12 years but it doesn't seem to be an {{R from move}} or anything else that we'd usually keep for an odd reason. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bounding Into Comics

The two seem unrelated. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_23&oldid=1220434251"